Nuclear is a good candidate - they take up a lot less land mass for the amount of power generated. I used to leave near one, and when my neighbors where asked where it was most pointed instead to a coal power plant many miles away.
In theory I wouldn't mind living next to nuclear.
I say in theory, because we've seen too many times when someone cuts corners, or has deadlines or poorly trained staff on site, that when things go wrong, they can sometimes go very very wrong.
When I visited one (decommissioned one in Ignalina, Lithuania where they filmed Chernobyl series) they said the radiation levels are higher than neutral/ambient, but lower than in city because all the concrete is slightly radioactive.
I mean sure, nuclear is very interesting but the cost right now is so sky high vs renewable that it's a massive uphill battle to even consider it. Then factor in the negative public perception and waste disposal issues and that hill you have to fight up just became a vertical wall. Solar and wind are low cost and high return. Maybe one day it will make sense but today it does not.
The plant I'm talking about was built in the 1950s though. I wouldn't build a new one today for the reasons you state, but having lived near one I'd do it again.
On the other hand an old-school power plant has relatively tiny footprint compared to the same output solars.
Many old school plants also rely on dams and provide massive ponds. Which sucks during construction when some people have to move. But in my experience after several decades people are pretty happy to live next to those massive ponds. If I'd have to pick living next to a massive lake which allows boats/yachts/etc (which is not so common in my whereabouts) with a plant on the other side of that lake vs. lake-sized solar plant... Former does sound better.
Nuclear is a good candidate - they take up a lot less land mass for the amount of power generated. I used to leave near one, and when my neighbors where asked where it was most pointed instead to a coal power plant many miles away.
In theory I wouldn't mind living next to nuclear. I say in theory, because we've seen too many times when someone cuts corners, or has deadlines or poorly trained staff on site, that when things go wrong, they can sometimes go very very wrong.
When I visited one (decommissioned one in Ignalina, Lithuania where they filmed Chernobyl series) they said the radiation levels are higher than neutral/ambient, but lower than in city because all the concrete is slightly radioactive.
1 reply →
I mean sure, nuclear is very interesting but the cost right now is so sky high vs renewable that it's a massive uphill battle to even consider it. Then factor in the negative public perception and waste disposal issues and that hill you have to fight up just became a vertical wall. Solar and wind are low cost and high return. Maybe one day it will make sense but today it does not.
The plant I'm talking about was built in the 1950s though. I wouldn't build a new one today for the reasons you state, but having lived near one I'd do it again.
On the other hand an old-school power plant has relatively tiny footprint compared to the same output solars.
Many old school plants also rely on dams and provide massive ponds. Which sucks during construction when some people have to move. But in my experience after several decades people are pretty happy to live next to those massive ponds. If I'd have to pick living next to a massive lake which allows boats/yachts/etc (which is not so common in my whereabouts) with a plant on the other side of that lake vs. lake-sized solar plant... Former does sound better.